Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Microcap & Penny Stocks : Amazon Natural (AZNT) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: wonk who wrote (2623)	8/29/1998 6:55:00 PM
From: bmart	Respond to of 26163

Mr. Wonk, Check the thread, it was Mr. tonto's post. I am joining Mr. bgtit for that wine now, have a pleasant week-end! Good Day RB

To: wonk who wrote (2623)	8/29/1998 7:02:00 PM
From: TopCat	Respond to of 26163

Excellent post, wireless. That pretty well summarizes it. If there is a squeeze here....that's one thing we will find out about pretty soon, apparently......but the company? Not inherently worth anything IMO. TC

To: wonk who wrote (2623)	8/30/1998 5:20:00 PM
From: marcos	Respond to of 26163

ww, you remind me of my accountant - give him a few minutes with a stack of paper and he starts asking intelligent questions, give him the answers and a few minutes more and he can tell me (who made the deals and wrote the cheques) what it all means better than I ever knew. A long time ago I realised it was best to call him before making any significant deal - that saves much more in taxes than his bill, and the peace of mind comes as some sort of dividend as well. Kind of amusing the answer you got from bmart, eh ...... and Cavalry, he's still saying after your post that 'nobody's found any problems' ... wow ... well, I guess it just goes to show ......... cheers

To: wonk who wrote (2623)	8/31/1998 8:46:00 PM
From: Mr. Forthright	Respond to of 26163

ww, I had missed your post on Saturday. How can anyone add anything to this extremely detailed and thorough review of Amazon's case over the last few months? Congratulations. Please allow me to re-post it for the benefit of those who might have missed it. <<Talk : $5 and Under : Amazon Natural (AZNT) \| Disclaimer and Warning \| Previous \| Next \| Respond \| To: bmart (2606 ) From: wireless_wonk Saturday, Aug 29 1998 6:45PM ET Reply # of 3176 bmart: ...they used 1995 disclosure statements in an attempt to corrupt 1998 realities,... You continue to state the this -- for lack of a polite way to say it -- ouright lie. Let us recap some issues from the past 9 months with this company. 1. PR regarding revenue and earnings projections. No Safe Harbor disclosure and probably would not qualify even if there was one. The earnings projection clearly qualifies as an attempt to mislead. exchange2000.com 2. PR on stock redemption and stock redemption plans. Appears to be illegal plan on its face if notification has not been given and an offer made to all shareholders to convert to preferred. exchange2000.com exchange2000.com 3. Outstanding shares count in PR not consistent with report from transfer agent. exchange2000.com exchange2000.com 4. No 8K filing as of yet regarding the most recent transfer agent change. 5. Resignation of auditor. Two filings propose mutually exclusive and conflicting stories. Amended explanation in direct contradiction of auditor's statements in prior SEC filings. Furthermore, disclosure does not appear to be in compliance with Regulation S-K. sec.gov sec.gov Regulation S-K law.uc.edu 6. Explanation for delayed 10K for 1997 is given as auditors resignation. Explanation for delay in second quarter 1998 10Q supposedly due to pending determination of intellectual property rights which heretofore have never been listed on books despite the existence of a contract between the parties. Mutually exclusive excuses. exchange2000.com 7. Clearly false PR regarding number of outstanding shares which is documented to be false by company's own SEC filings. exchange2000.com 8. Company supposedly prosecuting a court case regarding the illegal injection of restricted shares into the public market. However, the company has made no mention of this fact in SEC filings, and has actually stated in said SEC filings that there are no pending legal issues. If alleged stripping of legends stock is true, then the lack of public disclosure appears to be in clear violation of the requirement to disclose material events. See Items 1 and 2. sec.gov 9. PR claiming cream which prevents AIDS. Since there have been criminal prosecution of AIDS sufferers who failed to disclose that fact and infected others via sexual relations, one could reasonably hypothesize a capital crime prosecution if the company markets a product with this claim if it has no basis in fact. ...Or will you smugly dismiss my contentions as "hype"? You choose to ignore these issues. Consequently, a rational observer can do nothing less than ignore your contentions as hype. ww>>